i mean.. that's nice. but damn. If they dont qualify as deserving to reap their rewards... I dont know who does!
Edit: It seems like they may be vaguely referencing Markus "Notch" Persson's cash flush success after selling Minecraft.
I think just being self aware enough to be worried about how "money" might change them should be enough to settle their worries.
Notch had a rough time for a while, but he was always a very public person... these guys are a lot less public and I'd suggest less susceptible to being led astray... but who knows I guess.
> these guys are a lot less public and I'd suggest less susceptible to being led astray
They were in a niche, staying away from the "big players". Now that they join Steam, they'll be inevitably dragged in to "public" (if you'd like to call it that way).
I really hope that...
- ... they can handle it
- ... they can deal with the negative reviews of that kind of player that don't understand the concept of the game. For a newb, this can be a really frustrating game.
Why do you feel it's alluding to Notch? There are plenty of game developers who've struck it rich and the Dwarf Fortress authors' concerns about sudden wealth seem pretty specific to them.
I've considered this issue before. How much is 'enough'? It certainly depends on what your preference is (are you okay with second hand cars, or do you want to try a Lamborghini for size?), but $5M in the bank is 50 years at $100K a year (ignoring interest, etc). Towards the end of your life you probably don't need that much, but if you didn't want to have 'too much' and were disciplined enough to leave most of what you have in the bank and just give yourself an 'allowance', $5M would not be an unreasonable sum.
The decision to monetize DF came after a cancer scare, so it might be reasonable to assume 'enough' would be 'enough to ensure that both of us are comfortably able to handle such a medical emergency'
I'm sure you've heard this already, but it would be far more practical to move to pretty much anywhere other than the US that has free health care. The US is crazy when it comes to this.
I'm aware of that. I also noted that they mention multiple cancers are not unlikely over time (I'm unable to access the article at this time so I can't quote directly), and they specifically pick the $5M figure as a value that they are uncertain about. I'm suggesting that $5M is probably a reasonable figure to remove any uncertainty.
I'm just glad that Tarn is finally looking concerned about his own health, considering he has (according to interviews) been living like a hermit and subsisting on red bull and soft drinks...
Dwarf fortress always seems like a brilliant idea wrapped up in a terrible ui and execution. I recently started playing rimworld and its a very similar game but much easier to get started on. The game progressively gives you tips and messages on how to get better and do stuff rather than requiring you to spend hours reading a wiki to get started.
Yeah, the idea of it is attractive, and learning the crazy UI is half the fun, but once you really get into it you realize that there is no there there. It's nowhere near as complex as it seems, and full of bugs, some decades old. Trade is so easily exploited that there is nothing exciting about the elves coming. You can kill them and start a war, but the combat is so unbalanced and exploitable that they pose no threat. Trade being pointless makes half the items in the game worthless. I recently played until FPS death kicked in making it impossible to continue, and didn't feel engaged enough to start a new fort.
The problem is that the brothers do not play their own game, and it clearly shows.
DF is a "create your own fun" kind of game. If you try to play in an "optimal" way by exploiting the ridiculous trade values of some items and giving your fortress just one entrance with a drawbridge you won't have as much fun indeed. The solution is to simply not do that and set your own rules and goals.
I'd even say that trade and combat being exploitable is a feature, not a bug, since sometimes I simply don't want to bother with those aspects of the game.
I understand that it's a sandbox game, but the list of self imposed restrictions you have to follow to have fun is quite long indeed. Don't wall yourself in, don't use the OP traps, don't farm indoors, don't make bone/stone crafts (really high trade value despite bones and stones being waste goods), don't build using multiple floors (stairs have no movement cost last i checked), etc, etc, etc...
The devs really don't care about making a fun game. I guess their principles don't align with mine, but I won't reward them for leaving bugs unfixed for a decade plus.
I don't think "nowhere near as complex as it seems" is anywhere close to describing what many consider the most complex game ever built, including many industry veterans. Every material has dozens of variables (such as density), every creature's limb acts differently, there are thousands of materials and object types and most are researched thoroughly.
It is the most complex simulation game ever created (though not the most accurate). The fact that it's not very hard to play as you'd imagine, does not mean it is not complex.
If you look at the attributes of some creatures, weapons etc on the df wiki they are highly unrealistic and counter-intuitive. Moreover, the apparent complexity does not translate into fun gameplay, and actually hurts it in the form of high FPS. And the game play is still simple, almost mundane behind the hardcore veneer of inaccessibility.
It's better to think of Dwarf Fortress as a simulation project rather than a game. The developers have stated that improving the quality and depth of the simulation comes before making it playable or fun by games industry standards.
the ui problem stem from the very deep menu that you have to traverse and where to find them, and that comes from the sheer amount of stuff you can do in the game
even making it prettier won't really solve the issues at it's root that cause it to work that way
however, if you play with the menu visible (tab key), it's already a order of magnitude easier because at least you see all the mnemonic to traverse the control tree and they are well organized after all.
(compare with rimworld campfire, which is in temperature even if it's a production item, that always gets me by surprise if I don't play for a while)
No, you can lose your job or means of making money in some countries, but you can't get bankrupted by paying for treatment in countries with universal healthcare (or even close to it).
Most developed countries also have some measures of social security in cases where you lose your job so that even that is rare.
There are just a few (under 5) countries in the world where you will get the same treatment for "free" as you'd get in the US. The price is >65% taxation. In most of these "universal healthcare" countries, it's not that easy - a healthcare "insurance" is deducted from your wage, if you don't work, you have to pay it out of pocket (mandatory, but cheap - around $100 monthly). Social security programmes are useful just for literally homeless people, other people aren't getting much, really (you will not get anything if you have a job).
In other countries with universal healthcare, the law says that you will get only "medically necessary" treatment, amd everything else needs to be paid out of your pocket - and in these countries, no private insurance usually exists, so have fun with that.
Another point is quality of hospitalization care, again - there are less than 5 countries in the world where you'd get the same thing as in the US. In other countries you will share room with 5 other people, and be aware that usually at least one family member per patient is always present. Treatments such as colonoscopy are done in your room, btw. There usually is just one male and one female toilet and shower per ~10 rooms, of course used by the family members as well. The food is literally uneatable 99% of the time, 1% of the time you're lucky and it's plain bread and tea (nothing to screw up on that). Prepare yourself to be screamed at regularly by doctors and nurses. Prepare yourself to be bellitled at every opportunity. And prepare yourself that your family members might die because noone listened to them, and the only compensation you can get is the sentence "well, that's just the system, the government really didn't want that" - correct, no monetary compensation, no fines, no prison.
Did I mention that there is no way to go private other than paying out of pocket, and of course who would run a medical company in a country with universal healthcare?
Source: my whole life in a "universal healthcare" country.
Edit: Let the downvotes flow, I just stated my experience, definitely a downvote-worthy comment, lol. Dumbass me thought we would discuss.
Seems interesting tho. Almost every time I write my experiences with universal healthcare, I'm immediatelly (within 5 minutes) heavily downvoted, without any discussion. Hard denial? Universal healthcare definitely helps pharma and medical companies (they can overprice a lot, just like with any other governmental project). Lobby?
"In other countries with universal healthcare [...]"
Not sure where you live or where you've been too, but you make some sweeping arguments about dozens of countries.
Mostly everything you say is wrong about Germany (>65% taxation, no private insurance, share room with 5 people, treatments in your room, toilet not in the room, uneatable food, ...).
Germany is one of the five countries, and it has the lowest taxes among them. The rest are Austria and Scandinavian countries where total taxation rate approaches 70% all things factored in (I'm counting indirect taxes as well).
Isn't it interesting that the best healthcare system in the world is entirely privatized, in Switzerland?
They still have universal healthcare/ mandatory health insurance.
I don't think the libertarian types would be too happy with that.
and
>Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans
You can add Australia and New Zealand to that list too.
Both have amazing public/private systems, where everyone has access to public healthcare, and if you want to pay the extra money, you can go private. They also have (very affordable and fair) health insurance if you want that extra security.
The public hospitals are fine in both countries, you'll get the critical care you need, when you need it. There aren't people dying of cancer because the government can't afford treatment. Sure, it's a bit slow for non-essential and elective treatment (e.g. a hip replacement or other corrective surgery), but it does get done eventually and as I said you can always go private, which is a lot cheaper than the USA, as they have to compete with free healthcare.
I'm really not sure why you keep quoting total taxation as some kind of negative point regarding countries with universal healthcare and functioning social welfare systems? Quality of life, both for individuals and for the whole population is a much more important measure.
Very well, I'm happy to hear it's 8 now if we include UK and the original five (Germany, Austria, Scandinavia). Can we find more? Still way too low to justify a change that affects almost a whole continent (population wise) IMHO.
Perhaps you're being downvoted because you're unable to back up any of these vague claims with facts.
I'm not sure which country you're talking about but this doesn't reflect my experience of healthcare in the UK at all (presumably one of the 5 countries you mention).
Our private healthcare system is truly world class and very affordable (it has to compete with the NHS, after all). Yes, medical insurance is available to cover this. That said, even the NHS will routinely cover treatments that aren't "medically necessary" - even cosmetic surgery in some cases where it will demonstrably improve the patient's quality of life.
I don't believe there are any countries in the world with ">65% taxation". What is this figure even referring to?
I think most people do not see how this is somehow worse than being bankrupted for being sick.
For the record, I don't either. I'll eat my dry bread if it means I can then continue to not spend the rest of my life paying back the bills.
You’re being downvoted because you’re wrong, and anyone with any familiarity at all with the other systems knows you’re wrong.
Let us consider:
> Did I mention that there is no way to go private other than paying out of pocket, and of course who would run a medical company in a country with universal healthcare?
Like many people here, I’ve held private insurance in the UK. The last time I paid for it, I think I paid £150/m for it, but I’ve had several employees cover it.
UK does not have a universal healthcare system in a comparable way to continental Europe. It is excluded from what I said, but it's not much of a change - that makes it sixth in the world. Out of 195.
Sorry I was mistaken, however: Every commenter here is talking about their experiences in private clinics. These are not a part of most universal healthcare systems and it's polar opposite of what the USA liberals are proposing. That's why I didn't want to count UK in, however other commenters have proved to me that it was a mistake - if any homeless man is able to get such treatment, I have to agree it's universal - but is this true? Noone here confirmed that yet.
Exactly. I've also had private health insurance in the UK in the past. It cost a lot less than £150/month and when I used it I generally ended up in posh central London hospitals that get enough of their business from rich Arabs that they boasted of their Dubai TV channels.
It would help if you could say which healthcare system you're talking about, because what you say bears no resemblance to the English NHS. I'm not sure why you mention the UK system because you don't appear to know anything about it.
And that's one of the really confusing things about people who criticise the NHS: there are plenty of things that are real problems and that we're trying to fix, but these aren't the things they talk about.
> Universal healthcare definitely helps pharma and medical companies (they can overprice a lot, just like with any other governmental project). Lobby?
This point in particular is incoherent. Universal healthcare always has cheaper medication pricing than eg the US. The prices are open and available. Pick a med and compare.
In the Czech Republic and most other universal healthcare systems you need to separate pharmaceutics sold to patients directly (prescription or over the counter) and pharmaceutics sold in bulk to (governmental) medical facilities, I meant the latter. These are considered two different fields of business here.
You are downvoted because you generalize your experience to every country except a vague set of 5...
What you are saying is simply not true in most of Europe.
Case in point, last year I have been treated for some serious health issue that would have immediately bankrupted me in the USA, forever.
I was in the network of Charité Berlin, one of the biggest hospitals in Europe. The treatment and care was overall fantastic.
Yes, usually it seems the universal healthcare moves slowly. But once I was diagnosed, things _kicked_ in, let me tell you. The operation was brought on within days, insurance immediately got out of the way, the aftercare and radiation was scheduled immediately - things just went automatic. There were no 5-people hospital rooms and of course every room had a bath and toilet - what are you talking about? The facilities and rooms were all top notch.
Moreover, the doctors involved were Professors and otherwise top experts in the entire field, treating hundreds of tough cases every year.
And you know what I payed?
Nothing.
Again, in the USA, all the operations, radiation treatment, medicine, expensive machinery used and months in the hospital... It would have cost literal millions. I probably simply would have DIED because I could never afford it.
Here, however, I had close to the optimal (and positive!) experience that one could have in such a situation.
So yes, if you have a common cold, you will probably get less "treatment" on public than on private insurance.
But - from my experience - when you get seriously ill, the amount of ressources, personell and technology that hospitals like Charité can and will bring to bear to save your life, at no cost to you, borders on ridiculous. Seriously I often felt uncomfortable because of the amount of care. Those people seriously wanted to make sure I don't die, even though I am not important, don't have money and certainly not private insurance. This includes hospital staff AND the people from the public insurance.
For the latter, I expected a lot of resistance to the cost - like a private insurance would do. Them trying to minimize the treatment. Instead, the people at the insurance immediately "stamped" everything, and even me asking timidly about the costs was met with non-comprehension. It was pretty clear, when things get serious, the public insurance officials care about your life, no matter how much you pay.
Sorry but I feel rather passionate about this, and might I even say that I actually prefer public insurance for that reason. No where else would I have been important enough to live.
You might qualify your argument by clarifying that you're basing your argument on the idea that you wouldn't have had private insurance in the US and that you believe there is no healthcare in the US outside of private insurance.
The first is probably incorrect unless you're totally unemployed as most employers in the US provide private health insurance, and the second is truly incorrect as the vast majority of those who are not employed are covered by things like medicaid. We don't generally just let people die in the US because they don't have health insurance, and in fact hospitals in the US write off millions of dollars in care every year because the bills simply aren't paid -- but they still provide the care, simply shifting the cost to the government and to those of us who do pay the bills (and by extension our insurance companies).
Most of the "facts" people believe about healthcare in the US are badly uninformed and based in the mostly false arguments of those who wish, at all costs, to abolish private healthcare in the US and replace it with medicaid because of their political ideology.
As far as I can see, no private insurance would take me - it is a clear loss. Furthermore, it does not seem I would qualify for Medicaid nor Medicare (from reading the wikipedia article).
As for employment insurance - in the USA I would certainly not be employed except the company is uncharacteristically nice. Because in the USA, you can kick anyone out, especially someone who just spends months in the hospital. Or is that not true?
So how do you imagine I would be insured then?
Again, I have to ask because I don't know, but are you saying all the news reports of where exactly the above happens to people are fake?
There were many reports where people DID HAVE some insurance by their employers, but when it came to a long and expensive treatment, insurance refused to pay, or they lost their job very fast. Would you say these issues do not occur, or occur very infrequently?
Are the people on this board, who say they are afraid of losing their insurance coverage due to job-loss wrong?
If you propose that I get treated and the costs are written off, that still means I would have to declare bankruptcy and ruin my live further. Because it's not that I do not have any money, or minimal savings. It's just that the extend, complexity and length of the treatment leads to costs that can not be payed by a normal person, including pretty much any normal percentage of the costs.
And then, personally, I'd also doubt that I would actually receive that treatment if I can not pay. You say people you don't let die, but this is a multi-year treatment and it would be apparent after the first week that I can not pay for it.
There is a difference in long term health and survival by the quality and frequency of long term treatments over many years. Would a private, for business organization really do this for my benefit?
Like, experts would treat me for years in a top institution in the country, even though I pay nothing? Really? Or would they rather just do the minimum to get rid of any immediate danger and then release me?
And where do you see the advantage? Here, I still got the best treatment you could ask for (top experts, newest equipment, good facilities), and I was able to continue my life without being bankrupt.
If you're arguing that you'd be fired because you got sick in the US, that's not likely accurate -- certainly not accurate in terms of any professional job. Every company I've worked for has short term and long term disability insurance along with health insurance as well, and while most of the US is right to work it's also not normal to fire someone just because they have medical issues.
Yes, as we've seen in the last few days, nearly everything you see in the "news" reports from the US is heavily biased. There are no longer any unbiased media who report facts -- they all report the bias they want to push, and this particular bias is very popular among a large sector of those who want the US to convert to a socialist economy (which not coincidentally lines up with most of the US media's political views).
Don't base your ideas on wikipedia. Here's the source: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/index.html. Bottom line, if you don't have the money to afford medical care you will almost certainly be covered by medicaid -- now even including pre-existing conditions. In that regard, the US already has the socialized medicine system people want -- those who want it changed simply want all private insurance removed because they don't like its existence. It's not properly socialistic enough that some have good private insurance and others have public insurance. Of course those arguing this the loudest are congressmen and women covered by one of the best insurance plans in the country.
Your experience -- treatment by top experts and such in a socialized medical system is highly a-typical. You would likely not get that anywhere else on the planet, including all the other socialized medicine countries. It is not normal for socialized medicine to provide that level of care anywhere.
There are a lot of caveats to all of this, it doesn't all work perfectly. None of what I'm arguing is meant to claim the US has a perfect health care system -- we don't. There's a lot of room for improvement, but let's have the discussion from a foundation of facts instead of left-wing talking points.
Germany is one of the five. I purposefuly left it out to see how many people will talk about Germany, trying to say that it's the same in the whole EU.
Isn't it interesting that any time someone tries to disprove me, it's always Germany, Austria and UK or Scandinavia (these are the five+UK), but never Czech Republic, Poland, Spain, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Belorussia and even Russia...? Isn't it maybe because of the issues I'm talking about?
I'm happy that your system works, meanwhile I'm starting my 5th month of waiting in line for a really needed treatment of my back. I've been skipped several times already (corruption).
I must have gotten downvoted by a bunch of American allowing in misery at the state of their healthcare, all the while ignoring the situation in other countries
It's just so mind boggling to me that there's people in the USA who are literally dying of cancer because they simply can't afford to pay for treatment, and there's a significant percentage of the population that think it's not only normal but entirely acceptable. The whole concept just seems so completely foreign to here in Australia.
In contrast, I have a friend who immigrated to Australia about a year ago and isn't even on a permanent residency, but still gets full treatment for their cancer for free, just like any Australian citizen would.
The very idea that your survival is entirely dictated by your financial circumstances sounds like it's straight out of some dystopian fiction to me. That was the entire plot of Elysium, wasn't it?
> " [...] at the point where Zack and I would both have like 5 million dollars, and I don't know what that means,” he says. “Is that going to corrupt my morality somehow and turn me into a strange person?" [...]
The fact that he thinks about it this way, already tells me, that he shouldn't be so worried about it. Put it in a few different banks with a good track record and just let it sit there if you don't want to interact with it. It's there when you need it then :)
Everyone is always above money until they’re looking at a stack of it in front of them. The only folks I know that have the willpower to turn down a pile of money is someone who has their eyes set on a mountain of money.
They gave away money, in the public light, to attract more donations... to take off the top. More donations, more “top” to take from. Just because it was bitcoin, doesn’t mean they aren’t human. I think the past few years of bitcoin has proven that bitcoin isn’t magically immune to human corruption.
A bit offtopic, but I've been wondering - is it possible to destroy money in any way other than literally burning banknotes. With electronic money you can only transfer them between parties, so while you can give away all your money, the money still exists in the system - you can't call the bank and ask to have 100k deleted from your account. Am I missing something or is there no way for money to ever disappear from the banking system?
Money is created when debt is taken out. By repaying debt, the allowed maximum amount of loaned money (i.e. arbitrarily created money) is reduced. If all debts everywhere were repaid, all money would stop existing.
Therefore, if you give your money to people who use it to pay off their loans, you effectively do the same thing as having it "deleted". The other question, of course, is how to keep those people from taking on new debt now that they have some breathing room.
The way you tell it everybody has some moment in life where they're confronted by a pile of cash and then their true nature is revealed (conveniently letting greedy people everywhere say "hey you see you're just as base and materialistic as I am").
But in real life many people show their basic disinterest in money simply by choosing to do things and pursue activities that have no financial incentive. So in fact most people are above money.
Can they be tempted with a one-time solution to the many tribulations of their daily life? Yes. But I would argue they're still "above money" in the most important sense - they're interested in other things.
Are there truly folks “above” money? I believe so.
But not a single one is or wants to be in the public light. Ever.
The same drive that lends someone to desire public attention, also drives the want of money.
So if there’s a public statement about “oh, I don’t care about money. I’m just going to give it all away.” I smell bullshit. Sounds more like trying to gain sympathy purchases.
Nothing against dwarf fortress or these guys. But I’m sick of the tech high and mighty bullshit that everyone’s good saints with no desire of money. The more someone says they’re good little Boy Scouts, the more dirty they are.
I mean the two brothers that develop Dwarf Fortress for the past ~2 decades have made a completely free game, only asking for donations. Don't you think if they were as dirty as you say, they would have started to charge a long time ago?
They most definitely aren't dirty, but also there is nothing dirty in wanting money. Practically everyone needs money to survive, and if you want to have more money than just survive I don't think there is nothing wrong with that, if you acquire that money ethically.
> But in real life many people show their basic disinterest in money simply by choosing to do things and pursue activities that have no financial incentive. So in fact most people are above money.
Usually the preference of staying in the comfort zone comes first, and preference for money later. People will grab money if it comes with low effort and risk. However I wouldn't say that there is generally "disinterest in money", just disinterest in money in the sense that other factors are overvalued above it.
DF seems amazing but the learning curve is so steep it's discouraging.
I've yet to find a base building game that feels fair and does not put so much pressure on the player. Tried Prison Architect but my prison got burnt to the ground because guards were on strike (and they announced it 3 hours before while it takes 5 hours to be able to offer them a raise). Tried Oxygen Not Included but the water behaves SO erratically that my whole base got flooded because one of my minions stepped on the wrong tile (and it seems like the water keeps on expanding like a gaz, not like a fluid) and they were all frozen. Tried Don't Starve and Banished, and these felt so unfair (I hate dying because I didn't plan for something I couldn't guess 140 turns before).
Base Building Games are hard to program, I agree, but I don't feel they should be hard to play and enjoy.
I'd highly recommend giving Rimworld a go. It's like a simplified version of Dwarf Fortress but with a space theme.
The controls are much more friendly and there's a huge number of mods that can completely change the way you can play the game.
It definitely doesn't have the level of depth that Dwarf Fortress has (there's no z-levels for example) but it'll still suck hours of your life away if you're not careful.
If you want something more simpler you might want to try the Anno 1701. It has a slower relaxing pace, with rich visuals. But like factorio(I think) it is fully deterministic ie(crops once planted will never fail, crop yeild is exactly same in all farms at all times etc, etc..), which I do not like.
In Don't Starve you can adjust the world generation parameters to turn off all the things that turn your game into misery: the hounds, the giant monsters, the meteorite rain in the end of the Dry Season in the Shipwrecked DLC, etc.
The only problem is of course you then don't gain any experience and can't unlock new characters. And you don't get materials for some advanced recipes (e.g. no Iron Wind without the Sealnado).
I think, the game goes out of its way to realise its creators' vision, but, like all game creators, the people at Klei who designed Don't Starve, have spent a lot more time designing and implementing than actually playing their game, at least compared to their players (players/ designers - play/design 100/00-20/80 percent of the time). So the end result is full of little details that are meant to add to the fun, but only contrive to make the game really annoying in places.
For instance- with the meteorite rain, the only thing you can really do is pick up enough light and food, move far away from your base and start running around like crazy to avoid the meteorites hitting you. You have to move away from your base because the meteorites home in on you so if you stay home, they'll obliterate it. And pray that the hounds don't pick that moment to make an appearance. I don't quite understand who is that supposed to be fun for. The designers, thinking of you running around like an idiot trying to avoid fiery death from the sky, I presume.
Also:permadeath (but, then again: savescumming). I'm OK with permadeath in Nethack, but in Don't Starve I make a serious commitment of time and energy to build a base, then something stupid happens, like a hound takes a lucky bite or a spider poisons me and I die a stupid death and lose everything I've built. That's not funny.
89 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadEdit: It seems like they may be vaguely referencing Markus "Notch" Persson's cash flush success after selling Minecraft.
I think just being self aware enough to be worried about how "money" might change them should be enough to settle their worries.
Notch had a rough time for a while, but he was always a very public person... these guys are a lot less public and I'd suggest less susceptible to being led astray... but who knows I guess.
They were in a niche, staying away from the "big players". Now that they join Steam, they'll be inevitably dragged in to "public" (if you'd like to call it that way).
I really hope that...
- ... they can handle it
- ... they can deal with the negative reviews of that kind of player that don't understand the concept of the game. For a newb, this can be a really frustrating game.
I keep my fingers crossed.
Source? Why is notch held up as the primary example if it's as common as that?
But one became a billionaire and spends his days on twitter whining about how hard it is to be white.
The problem is that the brothers do not play their own game, and it clearly shows.
I'd even say that trade and combat being exploitable is a feature, not a bug, since sometimes I simply don't want to bother with those aspects of the game.
That's exactly why i stopped playing Elite Dangerous, devs making empty universes and all the fan boys saying to make your own fun.
The devs really don't care about making a fun game. I guess their principles don't align with mine, but I won't reward them for leaving bugs unfixed for a decade plus.
It is the most complex simulation game ever created (though not the most accurate). The fact that it's not very hard to play as you'd imagine, does not mean it is not complex.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/975370/Dwarf_Fortress/
even making it prettier won't really solve the issues at it's root that cause it to work that way
however, if you play with the menu visible (tab key), it's already a order of magnitude easier because at least you see all the mnemonic to traverse the control tree and they are well organized after all.
(compare with rimworld campfire, which is in temperature even if it's a production item, that always gets me by surprise if I don't play for a while)
In DF, "bCf" orders the construction of a floor.
Maybe rimworld figured out a tastful way to do that but, so far, every game I've seen it in only managed to ruin the experience.
Most developed countries also have some measures of social security in cases where you lose your job so that even that is rare.
In other countries with universal healthcare, the law says that you will get only "medically necessary" treatment, amd everything else needs to be paid out of your pocket - and in these countries, no private insurance usually exists, so have fun with that.
Another point is quality of hospitalization care, again - there are less than 5 countries in the world where you'd get the same thing as in the US. In other countries you will share room with 5 other people, and be aware that usually at least one family member per patient is always present. Treatments such as colonoscopy are done in your room, btw. There usually is just one male and one female toilet and shower per ~10 rooms, of course used by the family members as well. The food is literally uneatable 99% of the time, 1% of the time you're lucky and it's plain bread and tea (nothing to screw up on that). Prepare yourself to be screamed at regularly by doctors and nurses. Prepare yourself to be bellitled at every opportunity. And prepare yourself that your family members might die because noone listened to them, and the only compensation you can get is the sentence "well, that's just the system, the government really didn't want that" - correct, no monetary compensation, no fines, no prison.
Did I mention that there is no way to go private other than paying out of pocket, and of course who would run a medical company in a country with universal healthcare?
Source: my whole life in a "universal healthcare" country.
Edit: Let the downvotes flow, I just stated my experience, definitely a downvote-worthy comment, lol. Dumbass me thought we would discuss.
Seems interesting tho. Almost every time I write my experiences with universal healthcare, I'm immediatelly (within 5 minutes) heavily downvoted, without any discussion. Hard denial? Universal healthcare definitely helps pharma and medical companies (they can overprice a lot, just like with any other governmental project). Lobby?
Not sure where you live or where you've been too, but you make some sweeping arguments about dozens of countries.
Mostly everything you say is wrong about Germany (>65% taxation, no private insurance, share room with 5 people, treatments in your room, toilet not in the room, uneatable food, ...).
Isn't it interesting that the best healthcare system in the world is entirely privatized, in Switzerland?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
They still have universal healthcare/ mandatory health insurance.
I don't think the libertarian types would be too happy with that.
and
>Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans
Both have amazing public/private systems, where everyone has access to public healthcare, and if you want to pay the extra money, you can go private. They also have (very affordable and fair) health insurance if you want that extra security.
The public hospitals are fine in both countries, you'll get the critical care you need, when you need it. There aren't people dying of cancer because the government can't afford treatment. Sure, it's a bit slow for non-essential and elective treatment (e.g. a hip replacement or other corrective surgery), but it does get done eventually and as I said you can always go private, which is a lot cheaper than the USA, as they have to compete with free healthcare.
I'm really not sure why you keep quoting total taxation as some kind of negative point regarding countries with universal healthcare and functioning social welfare systems? Quality of life, both for individuals and for the whole population is a much more important measure.
I'm not sure which country you're talking about but this doesn't reflect my experience of healthcare in the UK at all (presumably one of the 5 countries you mention).
Our private healthcare system is truly world class and very affordable (it has to compete with the NHS, after all). Yes, medical insurance is available to cover this. That said, even the NHS will routinely cover treatments that aren't "medically necessary" - even cosmetic surgery in some cases where it will demonstrably improve the patient's quality of life.
I don't believe there are any countries in the world with ">65% taxation". What is this figure even referring to?
Let us consider:
> Did I mention that there is no way to go private other than paying out of pocket, and of course who would run a medical company in a country with universal healthcare?
Like many people here, I’ve held private insurance in the UK. The last time I paid for it, I think I paid £150/m for it, but I’ve had several employees cover it.
And that's one of the really confusing things about people who criticise the NHS: there are plenty of things that are real problems and that we're trying to fix, but these aren't the things they talk about.
> Universal healthcare definitely helps pharma and medical companies (they can overprice a lot, just like with any other governmental project). Lobby?
This point in particular is incoherent. Universal healthcare always has cheaper medication pricing than eg the US. The prices are open and available. Pick a med and compare.
Case in point, last year I have been treated for some serious health issue that would have immediately bankrupted me in the USA, forever.
I was in the network of Charité Berlin, one of the biggest hospitals in Europe. The treatment and care was overall fantastic. Yes, usually it seems the universal healthcare moves slowly. But once I was diagnosed, things _kicked_ in, let me tell you. The operation was brought on within days, insurance immediately got out of the way, the aftercare and radiation was scheduled immediately - things just went automatic. There were no 5-people hospital rooms and of course every room had a bath and toilet - what are you talking about? The facilities and rooms were all top notch. Moreover, the doctors involved were Professors and otherwise top experts in the entire field, treating hundreds of tough cases every year.
And you know what I payed? Nothing.
Again, in the USA, all the operations, radiation treatment, medicine, expensive machinery used and months in the hospital... It would have cost literal millions. I probably simply would have DIED because I could never afford it. Here, however, I had close to the optimal (and positive!) experience that one could have in such a situation.
So yes, if you have a common cold, you will probably get less "treatment" on public than on private insurance.
But - from my experience - when you get seriously ill, the amount of ressources, personell and technology that hospitals like Charité can and will bring to bear to save your life, at no cost to you, borders on ridiculous. Seriously I often felt uncomfortable because of the amount of care. Those people seriously wanted to make sure I don't die, even though I am not important, don't have money and certainly not private insurance. This includes hospital staff AND the people from the public insurance.
For the latter, I expected a lot of resistance to the cost - like a private insurance would do. Them trying to minimize the treatment. Instead, the people at the insurance immediately "stamped" everything, and even me asking timidly about the costs was met with non-comprehension. It was pretty clear, when things get serious, the public insurance officials care about your life, no matter how much you pay.
Sorry but I feel rather passionate about this, and might I even say that I actually prefer public insurance for that reason. No where else would I have been important enough to live.
The first is probably incorrect unless you're totally unemployed as most employers in the US provide private health insurance, and the second is truly incorrect as the vast majority of those who are not employed are covered by things like medicaid. We don't generally just let people die in the US because they don't have health insurance, and in fact hospitals in the US write off millions of dollars in care every year because the bills simply aren't paid -- but they still provide the care, simply shifting the cost to the government and to those of us who do pay the bills (and by extension our insurance companies).
Most of the "facts" people believe about healthcare in the US are badly uninformed and based in the mostly false arguments of those who wish, at all costs, to abolish private healthcare in the US and replace it with medicaid because of their political ideology.
Again, I have to ask because I don't know, but are you saying all the news reports of where exactly the above happens to people are fake? There were many reports where people DID HAVE some insurance by their employers, but when it came to a long and expensive treatment, insurance refused to pay, or they lost their job very fast. Would you say these issues do not occur, or occur very infrequently? Are the people on this board, who say they are afraid of losing their insurance coverage due to job-loss wrong?
If you propose that I get treated and the costs are written off, that still means I would have to declare bankruptcy and ruin my live further. Because it's not that I do not have any money, or minimal savings. It's just that the extend, complexity and length of the treatment leads to costs that can not be payed by a normal person, including pretty much any normal percentage of the costs.
And then, personally, I'd also doubt that I would actually receive that treatment if I can not pay. You say people you don't let die, but this is a multi-year treatment and it would be apparent after the first week that I can not pay for it. There is a difference in long term health and survival by the quality and frequency of long term treatments over many years. Would a private, for business organization really do this for my benefit? Like, experts would treat me for years in a top institution in the country, even though I pay nothing? Really? Or would they rather just do the minimum to get rid of any immediate danger and then release me?
And where do you see the advantage? Here, I still got the best treatment you could ask for (top experts, newest equipment, good facilities), and I was able to continue my life without being bankrupt.
Yes, as we've seen in the last few days, nearly everything you see in the "news" reports from the US is heavily biased. There are no longer any unbiased media who report facts -- they all report the bias they want to push, and this particular bias is very popular among a large sector of those who want the US to convert to a socialist economy (which not coincidentally lines up with most of the US media's political views).
Don't base your ideas on wikipedia. Here's the source: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/index.html. Bottom line, if you don't have the money to afford medical care you will almost certainly be covered by medicaid -- now even including pre-existing conditions. In that regard, the US already has the socialized medicine system people want -- those who want it changed simply want all private insurance removed because they don't like its existence. It's not properly socialistic enough that some have good private insurance and others have public insurance. Of course those arguing this the loudest are congressmen and women covered by one of the best insurance plans in the country.
Your experience -- treatment by top experts and such in a socialized medical system is highly a-typical. You would likely not get that anywhere else on the planet, including all the other socialized medicine countries. It is not normal for socialized medicine to provide that level of care anywhere.
There are a lot of caveats to all of this, it doesn't all work perfectly. None of what I'm arguing is meant to claim the US has a perfect health care system -- we don't. There's a lot of room for improvement, but let's have the discussion from a foundation of facts instead of left-wing talking points.
Isn't it interesting that any time someone tries to disprove me, it's always Germany, Austria and UK or Scandinavia (these are the five+UK), but never Czech Republic, Poland, Spain, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Belorussia and even Russia...? Isn't it maybe because of the issues I'm talking about?
I'm happy that your system works, meanwhile I'm starting my 5th month of waiting in line for a really needed treatment of my back. I've been skipped several times already (corruption).
/s, because I guess I was wrong, apparently?
In contrast, I have a friend who immigrated to Australia about a year ago and isn't even on a permanent residency, but still gets full treatment for their cancer for free, just like any Australian citizen would.
The very idea that your survival is entirely dictated by your financial circumstances sounds like it's straight out of some dystopian fiction to me. That was the entire plot of Elysium, wasn't it?
The fact that he thinks about it this way, already tells me, that he shouldn't be so worried about it. Put it in a few different banks with a good track record and just let it sit there if you don't want to interact with it. It's there when you need it then :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation#The_K_Foundation_...
"Of course I regret it - who wouldn't!" Drummond now says. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3667901.stm
Often when the government creates new money it's given to the banks who loan it to the rest of us with interest...
Therefore, if you give your money to people who use it to pay off their loans, you effectively do the same thing as having it "deleted". The other question, of course, is how to keep those people from taking on new debt now that they have some breathing room.
Sacrifice a small pile of money to try making a bigger pile. There are smarter ways, but making more was the intent.
If it wasn’t the intent, it would have been done in private.
But in real life many people show their basic disinterest in money simply by choosing to do things and pursue activities that have no financial incentive. So in fact most people are above money.
Can they be tempted with a one-time solution to the many tribulations of their daily life? Yes. But I would argue they're still "above money" in the most important sense - they're interested in other things.
But not a single one is or wants to be in the public light. Ever.
The same drive that lends someone to desire public attention, also drives the want of money.
So if there’s a public statement about “oh, I don’t care about money. I’m just going to give it all away.” I smell bullshit. Sounds more like trying to gain sympathy purchases.
Nothing against dwarf fortress or these guys. But I’m sick of the tech high and mighty bullshit that everyone’s good saints with no desire of money. The more someone says they’re good little Boy Scouts, the more dirty they are.
Usually the preference of staying in the comfort zone comes first, and preference for money later. People will grab money if it comes with low effort and risk. However I wouldn't say that there is generally "disinterest in money", just disinterest in money in the sense that other factors are overvalued above it.
I've yet to find a base building game that feels fair and does not put so much pressure on the player. Tried Prison Architect but my prison got burnt to the ground because guards were on strike (and they announced it 3 hours before while it takes 5 hours to be able to offer them a raise). Tried Oxygen Not Included but the water behaves SO erratically that my whole base got flooded because one of my minions stepped on the wrong tile (and it seems like the water keeps on expanding like a gaz, not like a fluid) and they were all frozen. Tried Don't Starve and Banished, and these felt so unfair (I hate dying because I didn't plan for something I couldn't guess 140 turns before).
Base Building Games are hard to program, I agree, but I don't feel they should be hard to play and enjoy.
The controls are much more friendly and there's a huge number of mods that can completely change the way you can play the game.
It definitely doesn't have the level of depth that Dwarf Fortress has (there's no z-levels for example) but it'll still suck hours of your life away if you're not careful.
1: https://rimworldgame.com/ 2: https://www.factorio.com/
The only problem is of course you then don't gain any experience and can't unlock new characters. And you don't get materials for some advanced recipes (e.g. no Iron Wind without the Sealnado).
I think, the game goes out of its way to realise its creators' vision, but, like all game creators, the people at Klei who designed Don't Starve, have spent a lot more time designing and implementing than actually playing their game, at least compared to their players (players/ designers - play/design 100/00-20/80 percent of the time). So the end result is full of little details that are meant to add to the fun, but only contrive to make the game really annoying in places.
For instance- with the meteorite rain, the only thing you can really do is pick up enough light and food, move far away from your base and start running around like crazy to avoid the meteorites hitting you. You have to move away from your base because the meteorites home in on you so if you stay home, they'll obliterate it. And pray that the hounds don't pick that moment to make an appearance. I don't quite understand who is that supposed to be fun for. The designers, thinking of you running around like an idiot trying to avoid fiery death from the sky, I presume.
Also:permadeath (but, then again: savescumming). I'm OK with permadeath in Nethack, but in Don't Starve I make a serious commitment of time and energy to build a base, then something stupid happens, like a hound takes a lucky bite or a spider poisons me and I die a stupid death and lose everything I've built. That's not funny.